PARISIAN TRANSCRIPTS 2.0
We had a number of people send us material after our first post with out list of deposition transcripts (and various other items) concerning the testimony of the extremely active plaintiffs’ side expert, Dr. Suzanne Parisian. We are still awaiting promised materials from certain other folks, who will remain nameless.
One anonymous benefactor sent us a 30-page disclosure list (no transcripts, unfortunately) of Dr. Parisian’s appearances in court or at trial prior to early 2010.
Another anonymous benefactor sent us a Westlaw print out containing additional Parisian-related materials. We’ve added the Westlaw citations, both to new items and to those we’ve already had.  We haven’t looked at them all, but we did review some, and we caution that a lot of the Westlaw materials contain extensive omissions and thus might not be particularly helpful.  The Westlaw materials also included some of Parisian’s expert reports, so we’ve created a second list – after the first – of those.  Those are only on Westlaw; they weren’t included in any materials we received.
We’ve tried to synthesize this material and compile it into a single list.  If you thought our prior Parisian post was boring – well this one’s just as boring, but even longer.  If we have the actual transcript of the testimony, then the item is listed in black, as before, with or without a Westlaw citation. If we don’t have any transcript, then we’ve also listed it, but in red.  A red colored entry with a Westlaw cite means we don’t have a copy of the transcript, but there’s something available on Westlaw.Continue Reading Parisian Transcripts 2.0

This will be a very boring post for almost everyone. Over the last month we’ve been collaborating with another defense firm compiling deposition transcripts for one of the other side’s most active – and we’d say most objectionable – expert witnesses: Dr. Suzanne Parisian.  As part of this collaboration, we’ve recently received a CD chock…

This is the Drug and Device Law blog, but sometimes we discuss cases that do not involve drugs or medical devices. We do so when the cases offer some sort of principle or object lesson that might prove useful. Such is the case with Kidd v. Conagra Foods, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2725 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 9, 2012). It is from the peanut butter MDL.
Truth be told, we’ve always loved peanut butter. It’s a yummy source of protein. It also carries a whiff of nostalgia. It seemed to the Drug and Device Law Toddler that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich was an absolutely unimproveable lunch item, especially with the chunky version of peanut butter. Our dietary proclivities have acquired more sophistication over the years, but old habits and tastes die hard. Once we were defending a criminal case and the prosecutor proposed to resolve the case by giving us a PBJ. Wow – not only would our client avoid jail time, but we’d get a scrumptious snack out of the deal. Turns out we were right about no jail time, but wrong about the culinary component — PBJ meant “probation before judgment.” Like peanut butter itself, the outcome seemed bittersweet.
Peanut butter is more complicated now. The peanut allergy is far and away the most common serious adverse food reaction. About one percent of kids are allergic to peanuts, and today the use of peanuts and peanut butter in schools is subject to all sorts of restrictions. The Drug and Device Law Daughter told us that there’s either one peanut-butter-friendly table or one no-peanut-butter table at her school cafeteria — we cannot remember which it is. Either way, it’s nothing like our simple peanut butter days (definitely not salad days) munching PBJs en masse during the Johnson administration. Who knew that peanut butter would become the stuff of product liability?
The Kidd case is not about an allergy. Instead, it is a personal injury action where the plaintiff alleged that he contracted salmonella from peanut butter. (And not just any salmonella — Salmonella Tennessee. Query whether a state wants a disease strain named after it. This is hardly Chamber of Commerce stuff.) The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied because the testimony of the plaintiff doctor expert “created an issue of fact as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s illness.” 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2725 at *20. The court then ordered that the allegedly contaminated peanut butter be tested. Guess what? It tested negative for salmonella. That should end the case, right? Would you be surprised to learn that the plaintiff expert explicitly based his opinion “on the assumption that the Plaintiff’s peanut butter was contaminated”? Id. at *21. Would you be surprised to learn that the plaintiff expert testified that if the peanut butter in question “tested negative for salmonella, he would change his opinion.”? Id. at *22.Continue Reading When an Expert Spreads it on Too Thick